It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why will no one listen to William Rodriguez's story (more importantly, why did the 9/11 Commission

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

How could he feel the building oscillate down in the basement?


When the front door of my house is slammed I can feel the vibration upstairs. Granted, it's one flight, but then my 7 year old daughter doesn't have quite the destructive mass of a loaded jet at 300 mph. That the entire structure would tremble at the impact should not be surprising to anyone. Since the sub-levels are connected to the higher floors by stiff steel there's no reason to think that a tremor wouldn't be felt down there.


From his other accounts the two noises were pretty much right after each other. How does he know that the building wasn’t oscillating from the first noise?


Because his senses tell him so.


What about his account of seeing one of the hijackers in the building before 9/11?


Personal identifications can be tricky. Many a man was sent to prison or death based upon faulty personal id testimony. But then, what does it matter? To me it indicates his truthfulness. Why would he bring that into the story if he were fabricating it in order to implicate the govt? It would not serve his ostensible purpose. Anyway, who's to say he's wrong? OBL was on the CIA payroll for many years. Would it be a shocker to discover that other Arabs were as well?


Oh, and BTW: the jet fuel ignition would have been similar to a fuel air explosive


Now Howard, you can't have it both ways. Earlier you cited a victim who was burned by a blast down an elevator shaft at upper floors. If the mixture was on fire before it allegedy found its way down the elevator shafts - which are not connected - to the sub-levels, how would it then ignite again to cause a large explosion? The type of explosion you refer to requires sufficient off-gassing from the accelerant that the fuel becomes oxygen rich or vaporous. There's no indication that took place, no accounts of the odor of fuel in the lobby or sub-levels. Additionally, there was no time for that to occur before the accounts of bombs in the sub-levels as the photo's reveal.




posted on May, 11 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
in what was was UBL connected with the CIA?

just wondering



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by seattlelaw
Now Howard, you can't have it both ways. Earlier you cited a victim who was burned by a blast down an elevator shaft at upper floors. If the mixture was on fire before it allegedy found its way down the elevator shafts - which are not connected - to the sub-levels, how would it then ignite again to cause a large explosion? The type of explosion you refer to requires sufficient off-gassing from the accelerant that the fuel becomes oxygen rich or vaporous. There's no indication that took place, no accounts of the odor of fuel in the lobby or sub-levels. Additionally, there was no time for that to occur before the accounts of bombs in the sub-levels as the photo's reveal.


The fuel likely spilled out of the wing tanks and down the shafts while still in liquid form. Remember that liquid jet fuel doesn't burn, only the vapor does.

Now a fuel mixture in air is an interesting thing. You have two numbers the lower explosive limit (LEL) and the upper explosive limit (UEL). Below the LEL, the fuel air mix is too lean to burn, above the UEL, it is too rich to burn. (Some of you may be old enough to remember tuning a carburetor).

For JP-4 the LEL is 1.3% volume of jet fuel vapors in air and the UEL is 8%.

It is entirely possible that in the vicinity of the impact floors, the fuel air mix was above the UEL until enough of the fuel had spilled far enough down the shaft to spread the percentage out to below 8%.

The result would have been like firing a cardboard shotgun.

At any rate the freight elevator and the observation deck elevators extended the height of the building.

Any adjacent hoistways would have been open to the same shaft.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by blatantblue
in what was was UBL connected with the CIA?

just wondering


The CIA funded him apparantly, it even made mainstrem news though has got washed over. That's why I think a lot of these arguments are red-herrings, the best way to commit deception is to make as much of it 'genuine' as possible. Why mess around with fancy aircraft, explosives, No-757s etc when it's easier to actually carry out the attack as described. The hijackers would more than likely not even know the true motivations or origins of the plan, I think one of the biggest mistakes some people make is that they try and make everything too elaborate.
The truth is more likely to be that the buck simply does not stop with OBL and he has/had someone pulling his strings, it could very well be a faction within the Government or it's affiliated agencies, it could be a foreign power, or any combination of things.
As SO pointed out in another thread, years ago just after the event there were theories going around involving factions within the Pentagon at conflict with each other, though as predicted at the time it was later washed over with all these theories that there was no plane, etc. That's probably why there is no definitive footage released of the Pentagon crash as it would erase the doubt from a lot of people's minds, not all of course, but still a lot.

The more important points to be considered are always buried under all this hype, mainly by people out to make a quick buck. No matter how it was carried out the crucial matter is whoi carried it out and why. The majority of truthseekers I see appear to be incapable of narrowing it any further down than 'The Government' which is vague to say the least and not very helpful.



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 09:59 AM
link   
well i was just wondering

because OBL was not trained by the CIA.

even ask Peter Bergen, whos met with OBL three times, and who is a critic of the Iraq war. hes not some suck up.

nonetheless, he states the CIA had no decision making process for which group of mujahideen got what.

ive read Holy War, INC, by peter bergan and he discusses quite clearly the, in my opinion, BS surrounding the issue:
www.tpmcafe.com...

i think some people on this site will find that interesting



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

If this lecturer presented a paper outlining his reasons for his belief then I'd pay attention, otherwise it's just empty words with nothing to back them, and his comment came second hand. But as long as it supports your official story it doesn't matter huh?


Emphasis mine.

What was that about Rodrigues and hearsay? This professor's explaination is total hearsay IMO. I agree, if he explains his belief in his own words then I'd listen more. But from what I heard, he was just quoting from NIST.

Just pointing out that if Rodrigues's testimony can be considered hearsay, then this professor's explaination is also hearsay. I think I'm making sense?

edit: If I could only learn to spell.



[edit on 5/12/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/12/2006 by Griff]

[edit on 5/12/2006 by Griff]



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Now a fuel mixture in air is an interesting thing. You have two numbers the lower explosive limit (LEL) and the upper explosive limit (UEL). Below the LEL, the fuel air mix is too lean to burn, above the UEL, it is too rich to burn. (Some of you may be old enough to remember tuning a carburetor).

For JP-4 the LEL is 1.3% volume of jet fuel vapors in air and the UEL is 8%.

It is entirely possible that in the vicinity of the impact floors, the fuel air mix was above the UEL until enough of the fuel had spilled far enough down the shaft to spread the percentage out to below 8%.


Let's get some numbers here...can we. What was the amount of fuel? What was the percentage at 100% capacity (meaning if all the fuel had stayed on the same floor)?



posted on May, 12 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Lets focus on William Rodriguez, what he had to say, why its not in the 911 Comission report, etc, not if OBL wears briefs or boxers.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Quite right, Nygdan.

And to that end, my belief is that any dissent which serves to divert attention from the official story of how and why the buildings came down (evil-doers - terrorism! - arab highjackers flying planes into buildings) is shunned as wacko conspiracy theory, anti-patriotic, anti-Bush and therefore anti-American since Bush and his bro's all wrap themselves in the flag every morning when they stick that flag pin into their suits. [To which I have to say to Bush and those who put those flags into their lapels every day, thanks for reminding me which country you serve because I would not otherwise believe it!]

Dissent, critical thinking, scientific inquiry, all things which we as Americans previously honored and included in our fledgling democracy, are, under the current administration of zealots and jingoists, VERBOTEN.

But remember people, the truth will set you free.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Rodriguez wasn't alone in his observations.


Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the SIXTH SUBBASEMENT of the North Tower when the first plane hit. His eyewitness account is of the moments after the first plane crash (WTC1 struck at 95th floor by unknown plane around 8:46 a.m.), and describes evidence of large explosions in the lobby, parking garage and subbasement levels of WTC-1 at the time of the crash. [or rather, timed to coincide with the crash.] "...the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working. The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone."

[...]

Construction worker Phillip Morelli describes being ***thrown to the ground*** by ***two explosions*** while in the FOURTH SUBBASEMENT of the [WTC1] North Tower. [THIRD explosion in WTC1] "The first, which threw him to the ground and seemed to coincide with the plane crash, was followed by a larger [third] blast that again threw him to the ground and this time blew out walls. He then made his way to the South Tower and was in the [WTC2] subbasement there when the second plane hit [9:03 a.m], again associated with a powerful underground blast. This is one of a series of interviews with WTC survivors..."

Source.

Note that Morelli noticed an explosion both before and after the plane impact, both of which threw him to the ground. Notice that these people are on different basement floors as well.


Phillip Morelli, another witness.
Video.

Rodriguez also describes the sounds of bodies falling, which apparently sound nothing like explosives:


"You could hear them. You could hear them hitting the ground. It was like nothing you ever heard before. It was a very hollow, soft sound. And you knew exactly what it was. They must have seen the other building come down and just mass exited the building".


Source.

So that's a total of four people that we know of publically attesting to explosions in the basement, as separate events from the plane impacts: William Rodriguez, Anthony Saltamachia, Mike Pecoraro, and Phillip Morelli.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
The usual agents workin' for the man.

Anyways, interesting thread and all good points... I think the 911 truth movement should hold its own commission and talk to all the people that knew anything about 911 and formulate their own investigation.

Make a website and put it up for the entire world to see.

Remember: David Rockefeller literally started the port authority, major brotherhood member he likely had a big say in the choosing of the WTC project that led to the twin towers and the ritual that happened decades later.



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Note that Morelli noticed an explosion both before and after the plane impact, both of which threw him to the ground. Notice that these people are on different basement floors as well.



Again, I have to ask, if he was in the basement, how does he know exactly when the plane hit?



posted on May, 13 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Again, I have to ask, if he was in the basement, how does he know exactly when the plane hit?


You are distracting people, Howard.

He felt at least three events, including the plane, and two of them knocked him down, and he wasn't the only one to report it.

That couldn't have been the plane alone no matter how you look at it.

[edit on 13-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
How is it distracting to ask: If he was in the basement, how did he know which was the plane impact?

I'm sorry if asking a logical question is distracting.




[edit on 14-5-2006 by HowardRoark]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Do you not get what I'm saying Howard?

They felt multiple explosive events.

A plane impact would provide an explanation for only ONE of the events these people experienced.

Asking how they knew which was the plane impact is a STUPID question to be asking right now; you're distracting from the point.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
In my opinion you would expect to hear explosions after the impact due to fuel vaporising in confined areas such as the lift shafts and exploding. Obviously this would only be the case if the first explosion he heard was the aircraft so it is relevant, if it was somehow proven the aircraft hitting was a later explosion then it would provoke the question of what caused the one(s) prior.
You don't need a lot of fuel to create a big bang, one rather pathetic example I can think of was the old oil burner we used to have where I worked, it was fairly small with a combustion chamber being about a meter high and having a diameter of 1.5/2 feet from what I remember. It went out one day so the apprentice pulled the burning tray out and chucked about 1/4 litre of Diesel on it, it started boiling instantly as it was still hot and vaporising thick white smoke so he panicked and slammed the thing back shut.. It wasn't air tight obivously due to the chimney but somehow the vapours ignited with a massive bang and blew the top of the combustion chamber and the lid off the machine. It was one hell of an explosion, especially for only 1/4 litre of fuel.

The point is that with the quantities involved in the WTC disaster it would not be suprising for there to be explosions after the impact as pools of aviation fuel vaporise then ignite and explode.



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   


Which is it, AGENT Smith? First it was this guy's testimony was dubious and that he was high when he heard explosions that weren't there. Now, you expect to hear explosions. Which is it?


See, the thing with 9/11 is that you have a puzzle of anomalies that together bring damning evidence agaisnt the official story. More so than the testimony itself, the fact that the 9/11 Commission blocked it, the FBI, NIST, and the American media don't wanna hear it, and that there are people who corroborate it are the crucial things here (not to downplay the testimony at all, though
).

When you have video that people ON THIS SITE have seen with CLEARLY audible explosions as well, you gotta give this guy credit for his story. THEN, you gotta wonder why the hell this wasn't included. It's like a classic railroading. The cops won't listen to a witness who fingers a different perp than they "want" to implicate.

When you combine EVERYTHING, with the most damning thing of all being the conduct of the govt after 9/11 (immediate invasion of a country, open borders, cracking down on civil liberties, using the Patriot Act against citizens, setting up a police state), you got a hell of a problem holding up the official story.

I gotta give you and Howard props. I wouldn't go through all this trouble unless somebody paid me...



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Which is it, AGENT Smith? First it was this guy's testimony was dubious and that he was high when he heard explosions that weren't there. Now, you expect to hear explosions. Which is it?



Uh? I just checked to make sure and I never said anything about anyone being high, nor did I even say there weren't any secondary explosions..?

More 'Truth Seeking' in action here I think..



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Read the whole testimonies. Concrete cracking, being knocked to the floor twice, etc. They weren't just reporting loud sounds.

[edit on 14-5-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   
Fair enough bud, I'll do that. I just don't appreciate it when some people say I said things I didn't..

Weird how they can be so specific as to say I said he was 'high' when I said nothing of the sort, makes you wonder what other 'facts' are made up. Ironically it's things like that which make finding the truth so hard.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join